Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether Excel Infoways Ltd. could be retained as a comparable for arm's length price determination despite failing the service revenue export/ITES filter and the diminishing revenue filter.
Analysis: The appeal arose from a transfer pricing dispute under Chapter X of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Court reiterated that comparability analysis must focus on similarity with the tested entity and that the object of benchmarking controlled transactions against uncontrolled transactions is to determine a reliable arm's length price. It noted that comparables must satisfy the material comparability factors under Rule 10B(2) of the Income-tax Rules, 1962, and that wide deviations or material dissimilarities justify exclusion. On the facts, Excel Infoways Ltd. did not satisfy the 75% service revenue filter applied by the TPO and also failed the diminishing revenue filter reflected in its financial data.
Conclusion: Excel Infoways Ltd. was rightly excluded as a comparable, and no interference was called for in the Tribunal's finding.
Ratio Decidendi: A comparable must satisfy the material comparability factors and reliable benchmarking requirements under transfer pricing law, and a company failing the applicable filters and showing material dissimilarity cannot be retained as a comparable for determining arm's length price.